[Houserules] Simplifying ACS Drives

[robject]

I'm testing out slightly changed drive rules. Mainly because those drive formula make me tear my hair out. Not that I hand-calculate them: I have computers for that. But if it's not clear what I'm looking at, I develop trust issues.

My tweaks for the Jump Drive, Maneuver Drive, and Power Plant are:

Jump Drive
Overhead: 5 tons.
Volume: 2.5%Jn, minimum total volume 10 tons.

Maneuver Drive
Overhead: -1 tons (yes, it's negative, sue me).
Volume: 0.5%Mn, minimum total volume 2 tons.

Power Plant
Overhead: 1 ton.
Volume: 1.5%Pn, minimum total volume 2 tons (yes, 2 tons).

Similarly for all other drives.

IMPACT

• Formulas become as easy as High Guard to calculate.
• Results stay the same for ACS drives A-Z. Book 2 compatibility doesn't deteriorate.
• Minimal impact (a slight benefit) on large hulls using 'ganged' drives.
• No impact on all other designs.
• Power Plant minimum size benefits small craft built from pod hulls.

 

[daltoncalford]

I have been looking over the system for the same reason. The charts and tables are not clear, with whole sections being a mismash.

I have been looking through the document - Do you know where EP are used in ship operation?

 

[Reban]

EP is a hangover from when Overclock on Powerplants was an explicit part of the design process in Beta.

It doesn't seem to have any direct bearing on the construction of ship designs but it could be useful in understanding the relationship between PPlants and and the type of Power Plant that generates electrical power for a city or installation.

It might also be possible to use the EP rating of a PPlant to gauge how many objects a PPlant could power if not mounted on a ship.

In short EP is a remnant from Beta that makes a good comparable rating between two PPlants in the same way Horsepower (HP) is used to compare two engines.


[EDIT] I should also say EP is an alternate way of writing the Drive or PPLant Number. Eg. 100EP = A and 2400EP = Z

 

[whulorigan]

EP is a hangover from when Overclock on Powerplants was an explicit part of the design process in Beta.

It doesn't seem to have any direct bearing on the construction of ship designs but it could be useful in understanding the relationship between PPlants and and the type of Power Plant that generates electrical power for a city or installation.

It might also be possible to use the EP rating of a PPlant to gauge how many objects a PPlant could power if not mounted on a ship.

In short EP is a remnant from Beta that makes a good comparable rating between two PPlants in the same way Horsepower (HP) is used to compare two engines.

EPs are actually still useful for building P-Plants and Drives that consist of several smaller units networked together thru "Nexi" instead of a single large unit. Use the EPs to determine the equivalent number of plants needed.

For example, the following are all approximately equivalent units based on EPs:

1) A single Q-Drive (Q1) ==> (1500 EP x 1 = 1500 EP)
2) An E3-Drive [3 E's networked w/ a Drive-Nexus] ==> (500 EP x 3 = 1500 EP)
3) A C5-Drive [5 C's networked w/ a Drive-Nexus] ==> (300 EP x 5 = 1500 EP)
​

 

[whulorigan]

I have been looking through the document - Do you know where EP are used in ship operation?

My guess is that EPs are entirely for comparing/building various Drive and Power plant combinations, since according to T5, all other ships systems can be (optionally) locally powered by Fusion-Plus Cold Fusion modules (installed locally in compartments or next to consoles). Thus, EPs are not really necessary to run ship-systems: they draw little enough power by comparison that it is irrelevant to the design. EPs are primarily measuring the power output and usage of the LARGE-DRAW components that REQUIRE overclock capability on a power plant to function. (P-Plants M-Drives, J-Drives, etc).

It might mean that if you have (for example) a C3 Power Plant, and one of the Cs is damaged in combat, that you might not be able to run ships drives at full power due to the power loss (since you would then be effectively running a "C2" until it is repaired).

 

[robject]

I also suspect that Energy Points are at this point simply an interoperability standard for calculation and measurement. Whatever that means... I'm starting to spout nonsense! It's late.

However, I am allowed to say that Spinal Weapons will require power accounting, so perhaps they're there so that when SpineMaker is being built we can have a reference point for energy usage.

 

[pendragonman]

Excuse my forgetfulness Rob

But what is the overhead?

 

[robject]

But what is the overhead?

It's a maguffin for injecting interest into the characteristics of small starships -- that's how Book 2 worked. It made drives "more expensive" volume-wise the smaller ships got. So 1000 ton ships are not simply scaled up versions of 200 ton ships; they have slightly different constraints, a little more wiggle room.

In-game, it's a Housing, or a Controller, or a Translimiter, or whatever. The non-scaling part of the drive.

 

[Licheking]

you know you don't need the formulas at all, since there is a table with almost all of the drives by hull size worked out on them.

 

[aramis]

It's a maguffin for injecting interest into the characteristics of small starships -- that's how Book 2 worked. It made drives "more expensive" volume-wise the smaller ships got. So 1000 ton ships are not simply scaled up versions of 200 ton ships; they have slightly different constraints, a little more wiggle room.

In-game, it's a Housing, or a Controller, or a Translimiter, or whatever. The non-scaling part of the drive.

CT also has hiccups in the tables, making the effective value of certain drives higher than it should be if they were formulaic; namely, drives J, W, X, Y and Z.

It made Bk2 somewhat annoying, especially since the drive prices and tonnages were strictly formulaic by drive letter, but the effect wasn't.

 

[robject]

CT also has hiccups in the tables, making the effective value of certain drives higher than it should be if they were formulaic; namely, drives J, W, X, Y and Z.

It made Bk2 somewhat annoying, especially since the drive prices and tonnages were strictly formulaic by drive letter, but the effect wasn't.

It was only annoying when one wanted to go beyond Book 2.

Okay, the more I got into Traveller, the more annoying it became.

Hey, it means even GDW had problems with Book 2 early on -- it didn't do what it needed to do without 'breaking' the formula.

 

[daltoncalford]

you know you don't need the formulas at all, since there is a table with almost all of the drives by hull size worked out on them.

I don't use the drive tables. They consume space and don't feel right.

If it was a Regina Starports Sigma-7 A-Grade Drive (ie, specifying manufacturer, tech, qrebs etc) then I would be more open to it.

 

[Licheking]

ok, fair enough and that sounds much better than you need an E J-Drive to get to X Jump.

 

[robject]

If it was a Regina Starports Sigma-7 A-Grade Drive (ie, specifying manufacturer, tech, qrebs etc) then I would be more open to it.

I know what you mean. It's evocative! I wrote a script that generates those sorts of product names based on a set of templates; I can't stand to see ship descriptive text with a bland, bald line like "The ship uses Jump Drive-A...". I want it to sell! On the other hand, in the ship design sheet, I don't want any distracting color; I need the bare facts.